2006 ESDIS Project Status

1. ESDIS Project Status
11/29/2006
Dan Marinelli, Science Systems
Development Office

2. EOSDIS System Evolution
• ESDIS was directed to evolve the systems
under its budget to accommodate vision
identified by a joint EOSDIS Elements
Study/Technical team
• Key vision elements include:
– Improve access and processing services,
ensure available expert knowledge, reduce
operational costs, ensure safe stewardship,
maintain IT currency

3. EOSDIS System Evolution
• Top 3 cost drivers contribute to approx. 50 % of
total budget:
– EMD/ECS
– GES DAAC
– LaRC DAAC
• Factors that contribute to top 3 cost drivers:
– Operating multiple systems (ECS, V0/V1, LaTIS, etc.)
– DAAC-unique capabilities and science community
support beyond specific operation of ECS/SDPS
– Providing sustaining engineering for ECS/SDPS at the
four ECS DAACs

4. ESDIS Evolution Path
• Approval has been given to embark down an
evolution path
• GES DAAC and ASDC DAAC to evolve away
from ECS SDPS at their sites
• MODAPS to evolve towards archive and
distribution of all MODIS products
• ECS SDPS footprint to be reduced greatly in
terms of hardware and custom code
• Summary of the plan can be found at
http://eosdis-evolution.gsfc.nasa.gov/

5. EOSDIS Today
EOSDIS provides
–
–
–
A production capability for standard science data products from EOS instruments
An “active archive” of Earth science data from EOS and other past and present missions
A distributed information framework (data centers, SIPS, networks, interoperability, other system
elements) with partners supporting EOS investigators and other users in science, government, industry,
education, and policy
ESDIS Funded Entities
No.
DAACs
SIPS
EOSDIS Overall Metrics (FY2006)
8
8
International
15
EOSDIS Systems
50
Unique Data Products
Distinct Users over FY06 at DAACs
No.
U.S.
10 of 14
System Interface Control Docs (ICDs)
Number of Accesses at DAACs
Partnerships
3,362
37.8M (est.)
3,291,397
Missions
No.
Science Data Processing
10
Archiving and Distribution
26
Instruments Supported
70
EOSDIS Metrics for FY2006
ECS
Non-ECS (reporting)
Daily Ingest Volume (in GB)
3,033
274
Daily Archive Growth without Deletion (TB/day)
3.21
0.65
Daily Archive Growth with Deletion (TB/day)
2.40
0.65
End User Daily Distribution Volume (in TB)
2.86
0.16
End User Distribution Products (in millions)
65.6
4.1
Total Archive Volume at the End of FY06 (in PB)
3.67
0.94
Total Archive Products at the End of FY06 (in millions)
71.7
41.1
EOSDIS_Today_11222006. xls

6. EOSDIS Mission Profile
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
ERBS (SAGE II)
10/1984 - 2 years planned mission life
ERS-1
10/1978 - 10 yrs m life
NIMBUS-7 (TOMS I)
Meteor 3 TOMS (TOMS II)
UARS
Planned decay 2010
TOPEX/Poseidon
JERS-1
OrbView-2 (SeaStar)
ERS-2
Earth Probe TOMS (TOMS III)
RadarSat 1
Heritage Missions
3 yrs
ADEOS I (Midori)
TRMM
CERES data only
EOS Missions
Landsat 7
QuikSCAT
KEY
Planned Mission Life
Extended Mission Life
4 yr Data Access Period
(includes 3 yr reprocessing)
3 yr Reprocessing Pd
No Planned EOL
EOS Terra
ADEOS II (Midori
3 yrs
Jason-1
ACRIMSAT
Meteor 3M
EOS Aqua
ICESat
EOS Aura
SORCE
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
file name: EOS missions vs time6.xls

7. Archive Volume Trend
Archive Volume (TB)
700
600
500
400
300
200
GSFC
EDC
LARC
100
FY03
FY04
NSIDC
FY05
FY06

8. Granules into Archive Trend
Archive Granules
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
GSFC
EDC
LARC
2,000,000
0
FY03
FY04
NSIDC
FY05
FY06

9. Distribution Volume Trend
DAAC Distribution Volume (TB)
300
250
200
150
100
GSFC
EDC
LARC
NSIDC
50
0
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06

10. Distribution Granules Trend
Number of Granules Distributed
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
GSFC
LARC
EDC
NSIDC
1,000,000
0
FY03 FY04
FY05
FY06

11. User Access Statistics
DAAC Fiscal Year 2006 Access Statistics for ECS and Non-ECS Data
Number of Distinct Users Accessing DAACs
TITLE
ASF
ECS Orders/Subscriptions
EDC
GHRC
5,535
GSFC
JPL
NSIDC
463
3,117
LARC
ORNL
SEDAC
811
TOTAL
9,926
Non-ECS Orders/Subscrip
127
0
152
284
41
399
414
119
0
1,536
WWW (users)
25,563
0
174,764
294,271
86,862
279,545
644,943
170,943
814,770
2,491,661
FTP (users)
56
0
181
2,884
1,545
0
530
1,296
556
7,048
Off-line (users)
0
0
26
419
224
981
611
791
376
3,428
Datapool (users)
0
2,463
0
2,831
0
688
512
0
0
6,494
Total (users)
25,746
7,998
175,123
303,806
88,672
282,076
647,821
173,149
815,702
2,520,093

12. EOSDIS 2006 Customer
Satisfaction Survey
• EOSDIS’ third survey, about 2800
responders
• Survey has changed slightly each time,
but the standard questions for measuring
satisfaction are the same
• 2006 survey addressed product search,
selection and order, distribution, quality,
documentation and customer support

13. Respondent Background
Q8. For which disciplines do you need or use Earth science data? (n=2,857)*
45%
Land Cover/Land Use
41%
Climate/Climate Change
47%
44%
36%
37%
Atmosphere
32%
33%
Ecosystems
25%
26%
Agriculture
Oceans
23%
Water and Energy
23%
Weather
25%
21%
22%
Natural Hazards
27%
21%
22%
21%
21%
Resources
19%
Education
16%
Radiance
15%
Geolocation
22%
20%
17%
15%
16%
Carbon Cycle
11%
11%
Planning
10%
10%
Cryosphere
8%
9%
Other
8%
9%
Solid Earth
5%
6%
Socioeconomics
4%
4%
Sun-Earth Connections
3%
3%
Space Weather
1%
2%
Flight dynamics
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2005
30%
2006
35%
40%
45%
50%

14. Customer Survey Product Quality
HDF-EOS
HDF
NetCDF
Binary
ASCII
TIFF or GeoTIFF
JPEG, GIF, PNG
OGC Web services
Other
Q27. In what
format were
your data
products
provided to
you?
37%
30%
3%
6%
6%
10%
3%
1%
3%
Q28. What
format would
/ do you
prefer?
21%
21%
8%
7%
9%
23%
4%
2%
5%

15. Summary of HDF-related comments to the
CFI Survey
(Informally assessed)
Need tools for data handling
20
More useful for various user types (GIS/educational/science) if in some other than
HDF format.
19
Make the distribution format fit what the user wants (or at least add more flexibility)
14
Would prefer NetCDF
8
Need to pay attention to usability of data products
3
Need documentation to extract from HDF-EOS (or HDF) file
2
Need program to extract or convert HDF-EOS Data
2
Hard for nonprogrammers to handle HDF
1
HDF-EOS is a bad format for multi-spectral/multi-angle data sets
1
Need windows tool for HDF
1
No response to help
1
We read HDF-EOS data as HDF5
1

16. How May We Help You?
• The data gleaned from the survey leads
us to conclude that the ESDIS Project
needs to examine solutions for the areas
of:
– Data handling support software
– Preprocessed/flexibly-formatted data access
paths
– NetCDF
– GeoTIFF when applicable